JUDGMENT B.L. Loomba, J. - Main question involved in each of the writ petitions in this connected bunch is about the liability of the U. P. Government for payment of salary and allowances to the petitioners who are either teachers or members of the non-teaching staff of the Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Allahabad. 2. Allahabad Agricultural Institute is a private institution having a long history. A new department in agricultural was opened in the Allahabad Christian College in the year, 1912 and the very next year this department became separate from the Allahabad Christian College and was named Allahabad School of Agricultural which was, subsequently, re-named as Allahabad Agriculture institute hereinafter to be referred to as the institute on February 12, 1919. Id. 1926 a three years apprentice course in Farm Mechanics restricted to Christian boys was started to prepare students for services in villages. This Institute was recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate B location, U.P. in the year, 1924. Allahabad University Sanctioned B. Sc. Agriculture studies in this institute in the year, 1932. In 19 2, the Allahabad University authorised the institute to offer Bachelor degree in Agriculture Engineering This Institute was permitted to start post graduate Education by the Allahabad University in the year 1964 (See Booklet issued by the Institute in June, 1984 entitled programmes and plans copy tiled in writ petition No. 19197 of 1985). According to this booklet, the aim and object of the Institute mainly is to provide education and training in areas of agriculture and rural economic development. The Institute prepares students for the Intermediate in agriculture and Home Science Examinations, of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. In the degree programmes, the Institute offers education for B. Sc. Agriculture, 8. Teach, Agricultural Engineering 8. Sc. Home Economics of the Allahabad University. In the post graduate education programme, the Institute prepares students for M. Sc. Degree in the subjects of agronomy, Agricultural Examination, Diary Technology, Agricultural Bio-Chemistry Animal Sciences Horticulture, Agricultural Economics plant pathology and Agricultural Engineering of the Allahabad University. This Institute also offers the Indian Dairy Diploma Training of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The total number of Students as in February, 1984 is said to be 819 out of which 171 are in M. Sc. (Nine Fields) while the rest are in B. Sc. This Institute also offers the Indian Dairy Diploma Training of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The total number of Students as in February, 1984 is said to be 819 out of which 171 are in M. Sc. (Nine Fields) while the rest are in B. Sc. and Intermediate stages), out of number of 819, 277 are said to be Christians. The institute is associate college of the Allahabad University. It is a minority institute within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 3. According to the petitioner this Institute is a premier agriculture institution in the country extending valuable contribution to the Agricultural Development in the country with modern and latest techniques. It is claimed to have well equipped modern laboratories Research Farms. Research Centres and having all the trappings and paraphernalia required for agricultural and technological University meriting to be raised to the status of an autonomous college. From affidavits filed in the various writ petitions and the booklet referred to above, it clearly appears that this is an important institution of high repute in the field of education of agricultural sciences for Intermediate Classes as also for graduate and post graduate degrees. 4. It is the accepted position that the Institute came on grant-in-aid list of the State Government only from the year, 1967-68. Prior to that, the Institute used to meet its expenditure entirely from its own income and as such it was only from the year 1967-68 that the State Government came to be concerned about the strength of its teaching and non-teaching staff as also about the liability for payment of the salaries and allowances to its staff and expenditure of the institute under other heads of expenditure. Maintenance grant or this Institute was given under paragraph. 319 of the U. P. Educational Code, (herein- after to be referred to as the Code). Paragraph 319 of the Code is reproduced below : "319. The Government grant to a degree college shall not exceed (a) half of the approved Institutional expenditure of the college or (b) the difference between recurring approved expenditure for the year and recurring approved income for the year, excluding Government grant, whichever is less." 5. Chapter IX of the Code deals with grant-in-aid to recognised institutions. The Government grant to a degree college shall not exceed (a) half of the approved Institutional expenditure of the college or (b) the difference between recurring approved expenditure for the year and recurring approved income for the year, excluding Government grant, whichever is less." 5. Chapter IX of the Code deals with grant-in-aid to recognised institutions. The various paragraphs contained in this chapter lay down the procedure and conditions for grant-in-aid given by the State Government paragraph 309 of the Code provides that no grant is made to any institution which does not conform to the conditions for recognition laid down by the Government or to any college income, whereof from all sources is sufficient to maintain it is efficiency or to any college which is conducted to private profits. According to paragraph 315 if any of the conditions upon which a grant has been made not fulfilled the department may, after considering is not fulfilled the department may, after considering all the circumstances and any representations which the Manager may desire to make suspend, withdraw or reduce the grant till such time as the conditions are fulfilled. According to paragraph 293 of the Code no grant shall be made to any institution unless it agrees to comply with the conditions as laid down in this paragraph the conditions mainly being that it shall be open to the officers of the Education Department to inspect the college and that the institution shall keep and maintain accounts income and expenditure in the prescribed from duly audited by the auditors employed by the Government, not to permanently appoint an untrained teached without the permission of the District Inspector, Regional Inspectors of Schools, to not to open an additional section or close an existing section in any class without the previous approval of the District Inspector Regional Inspectors as the case may be. 6. As is provided in paragraph 319 of the Code, the maintenance grant to given to a degree college shall not exceed half of the approved intuitional expenditure of the college or the difference between the recurring approved expenditure for the relevant year and recurring approval income for that year, excluding Government grant, whichever is less. 6. As is provided in paragraph 319 of the Code, the maintenance grant to given to a degree college shall not exceed half of the approved intuitional expenditure of the college or the difference between the recurring approved expenditure for the relevant year and recurring approval income for that year, excluding Government grant, whichever is less. This indicates that the number of teaching post as also non-teaching posts for purposes of grant was required to be approved by the Educational Department and the posts beyond the approved not treated in grant in education department and the posts beyond the approved strength were not treated on grant-in-aid. Maintenance grant for the purposes of disbursement of salary to the teachers and non-teaching staff was given to the Institute under paragraph 319 of the Code upto the year 1974-75. 7. This is the undisputed position that the approved teaching and nonteaching staff of the recognised private Institutions were required to be paid salary and allowances admissible to the Government servants on equivalent posts in Government institutions, parity in this regard as between the employees of Government Educational Institutions and employees of recognised private institutions was granted in the context of the demand for parity by the employees of the private Institutions and on the basis of recommendations of the pay commission/committees appointed by the State Government. It may be relevant here to make a mention of Government Order No. Ga 3269/-15-100(l)-68, dated May 13, 1968 issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government and addressed to Director of Education, U. P., Allahabad. This G. O. has been subjected to challenge practically in all the writ petitions in this bunch filed by non-teaching employees union or the individual of employees of this institute, copy of this G.O. is Annexure C. A. 1 to the counter-affidavit of Shri Ram Upadhyay, dated 5-3-1985 in Writ Petition No. 10045 of 1984 filed by S.P.C. Lal through M. N. Khanna, Treasurer of Non-teaching staff Association of this Institute. Important provisions of this G. O. will show that the recognised private degree colleges on grant-in-aid list of the Government shall be divided in three categories (a) (b) and (c) and shall be paid salary and allowances equal to non-teaching staff of Government degree colleges on equivalent posts with effect from 1-4-1967. Important provisions of this G. O. will show that the recognised private degree colleges on grant-in-aid list of the Government shall be divided in three categories (a) (b) and (c) and shall be paid salary and allowances equal to non-teaching staff of Government degree colleges on equivalent posts with effect from 1-4-1967. The pay scales in respect of the various posts approved for (a) (b) and (c) categories of such colleges were given in appendix Ka to this G. O. even the norms about the strength of the staff in three different categories of colleges were specified in the note below Appendix-Ka. It was mentioned that there will be no separate post of accountant in category (c) colleges. Further, there will be one clerk as against the strength of 500 students. The minimum strength of a (c) category colleges would be two clerks, one head clerk-cum-Accountant and one Routine Grade Clerk. As regards categories (a) and (b) Colleges, there will be one post of stenographer also. It was also provided that the strength of posts in the scale of 120-200 shall not be more than 20% of the post-ain the scale of Rs 100-180f It was also provided that for a college having 3000 or more students there will be a post of Burser in the scale of Rs. 300-600, provision was also made as regards the posts in the Library, Laboratories and other classes IV posts like Peon, Daftri and Sweeper, etc. 8. In paragraph-4 of the counter-affidavit of Shri Ram Upadhyaya Assistant Director, Higher Education, dated 5-3-1985 in Writ Petition No. 10045 of 1984 it was stated that prior to the Government of U. P. Education amendment Act, 1975 (U. P. Act 21 of 1975) whereby Chapter XI-A was inserted in the said Universities Act, 1973, the employees of the non-Government aided Degree Colleges in the State were paid their salaries in the scale prescribed by the State Government but the responsibility for payment of their salary rested on the management of the colleges concerned. In respect of such date duly approved post the maintenance grant or grant-in-aid was paid by the Government through the Director of education under paragraph 319 of the Code. In respect of such date duly approved post the maintenance grant or grant-in-aid was paid by the Government through the Director of education under paragraph 319 of the Code. It was also stated that with a view to ensuring proper utilisation of the maintenance grant-in-aid by the Colleges and to avoid abuse of public fund and other irregularities by the, Government issued G. O., dated 13-5-1968 classifying various colleges in three categories, namely, A, (b) and (c) on the basis of the strength of student. This G. O. also prescribed maximum limit of the number of employees other than teachers that can be employed in the college of particular category and scale of pay admissible to them. It was further added that any appointment in-excess of the number fixed by the State Government under G. O., dated 13-5-1968 or on an post carrying designation other than the designation specified in the said G. O. was not recognised for the purposes of paying maintenance grant or for any salary to the employee of the college. If any such post was created that was entirely at the risk of the management of the college concerned and the management had to shoulder the responsibility for payment of salary and other emoluments to such employees. 9. In the same paragraph of the counter-affidavit it was also asserted that this instituted had always up to the academic year 1974-75 strength of students around 500 only and as such its classification was of category (6) college and maintenance grant upto 1st April, 1975 was paid in respect of only four posts of class IV which was the approved strength till the financial year 1974-75. 10. The U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was enacted to make comprehensive provisions relating to the constitution of the various authorities of she Universities, its officers matters relating to appointment and punishment of teachers and to provide for the admission of students and examination and regulation of affiliated and associated Colleges of the Universities. The enactments relating to many Universities like Lucknow University Act, 1922. Allahabad University Act, 1921, Agra University Act, 1926 and those pertaining to some other Universities in the State were repealed by the said 1973 Act. 11. Chapter XI-A containing Sections 60-A to 60-H was inserted in the said 1973 Act. The enactments relating to many Universities like Lucknow University Act, 1922. Allahabad University Act, 1921, Agra University Act, 1926 and those pertaining to some other Universities in the State were repealed by the said 1973 Act. 11. Chapter XI-A containing Sections 60-A to 60-H was inserted in the said 1973 Act. This Chapter was inserted in order to safeguard the payment of the salary to the teachers and other employees of degree colleges. The State Government took upon itself the liability for payment of their salaries due in respect of any period after March 31, 1975. This appears to have been done in the context of many alleged irregularities committed by the colleges in the matter of payment of salaries and allowances to their employees. Various provisions of this chapter are relevant for the purposes of appreciation and disposal of controversies raised in these writ petitions. In fact, the provisions contained in this Chapter are relied upon by the petitioner of these writ petitions in their separate claims for payment of salary at the prescribed rates by the State Government. Challenge to the validity of these provisions has also been made in so far as its applicability is limited to teachers and employees covered by the definition of the terms teachers and employees' contained in Section 60-A of the Act. Some of the directly relevant provisions of the said Chapter Xl-A of the Act are as given out below : "Chapter XI-A Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees of Degree Colleges 60-A. Definition. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise require. - (1) College means any college affiliated to or recognised by any University in accordance with the provision of this Act or the statutes made thereunder and for the time being receiving maintenance grant from the State Government (but does not include a college maintained exclusively by the State Government or a local authority. (ii) .. .. (iii) employee, in relation to a college, means a non-teaching employee of such college : (a) in respect of whose employment maintenance grant was being paid by the State Government during the financial year 1974-75 or (b) who was appointed to a post with the high permission of the Director of Education (higher Education). (ii) .. .. (iii) employee, in relation to a college, means a non-teaching employee of such college : (a) in respect of whose employment maintenance grant was being paid by the State Government during the financial year 1974-75 or (b) who was appointed to a post with the high permission of the Director of Education (higher Education). (iv) maintenance grant means such grant-in-aid of a college as the State Government by general or special order in that behalf directs to be treated as maintenance grant appropriate to the level of that College, (v) salary shall have the meaning assigned to it, in clause (b) of Section 56, (vi) `teacher' in relation to a college, means a teacher in respect of whose employment maintenance grant was being paid by the State Government during the financial year, 1974-75 or who is employed with the approval of the Vice-chancellor of the University concerned - (a) to a post created before April 1, 1975, with the permission of the Vice-Chancellor concerned ; or (b) to a post created after March 31, 1975 with the permission of the Director of Education)". "60-B. Payment of salary within time and without unauthorised deductions. (1) Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, the salary of a teacher or other employee of any college in respect of any period after the 31st day of March, 1975, shall be paid to him before the expiry of the 20th day or such earlier day as the State Government may, by general or the month in behalf, appoint, or the month nex following special order in that respect of which or any part of which it is payable. 60-C. Power to inspect. - (1) The Deputy Director at any time for the purposes of this Chapter, inspect or cause to be inspected any college or call for such information and records (including registers, books of account and vouchers) from its management with regard to the payment of salaries to its teachers or employees or give to its management any direction for the observance of such canons of financial propriety (including any direction for retrenchment of any teacher or employee or for prohibition of any wasteful expenditure,) as he thinks fit. (2) Every direction for retrenchment under sub-section (1) shall be issued after obtaining the prior approval of the director of Education (higher Education) and shall specify a future date on which such retrenchment shall become operative. (3) Where any direction for retrenchment is issued in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2) the teacher or the employee concerned shall with effect form the date specified in such direction, cases to be a teacher or employee of the college for the purposes of the maintenance grant payable under this Chapter. 60-CC................ 60-D. Procedure for payment of salary in case of certain colleges. - (1) The management of every college, for the purposes of disbursement of salaries to its teachers and employees open in a scheduled bank or a co-operative bank or post office a separate account (hereinafter in this chapter called salary payment Account') to be operated jointly by a representative of the management and by the Deputy Director or such other officer as may be authorised by the Deputy Director in that behalf: Provided that after the salary payment Account is opened the deputy Director may, if the is subject to any rule made under Section 60-E satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, instruct the bank that the account shall be operated by the representative of the management alone and may at any time revoke such instruction: Provided further that in the case referred to in sub-section (3), or where in any other case after giving to the management an opportunity of showing cause, the deputy director is of opinion that it is necessary of expedient so to do the Deputy Director may instruct the Bank that the salary payment account shall be operated only by himself or by such other officer as may be authorised by him in that behalf and may at any time revoke such instruction, (2) The State Government may from time to time require by general or special order that the Management of a college shall deposit in the Salary Payment Account such portion of the amount received, from students as fees and also such portion, if any. of the income received from any property movable or immovable belonging to or endowed wholly or partly for the benefit of the college, and by such date as may be specified in that order, and thereupon the Management shall be bound to comply with such direction. (3) Where the Deputy Director is of opinion that the Management has failed to deposit the fees in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) or the orders issued thereunder, the Deputy Director may by order, prohibit the management from realising any fees from the students and thereupon, the Deputy*, Director may realise the fees either through the teacher of the college or in such other manner as he thinks fit directly from the students and shall deposit the fees so recovered in the salary payment account. (4) The State Government shall also pay into the salary payment account such amount as maintenance grant, which, after taking into consideration the amounts deposited under sub-sections (2) and (3) is necessary for making payment in accordance with sub-section (5). (5) No money credited to the salary payment account shall be applied for any purpose except the following, namely : (a) for payment of salary to the teachers and other employees of the college failing due for any period after March 31, 1975. (b) for crediting the Managements Contribution, if any to the provident fund accounts of teachers and employees of the college concerned. (6) The salary of a teacher or employees shall be paid by transfer of the amount from the salary payment Account to his account if any, in the same bank or if he has no account in that bank then by cheque. 60-E. Liability in respect of Salary. - The State Government shall be liable for payment of salaries of teachers and employees of every college due in respect of any period after March 31, 1975. (2) The State Government may recover any amount in respect of which any liability is incurred by it under sub-section (1) by attachment of the income from the property belonging to or vested in the college as if that amount were in arrear of land revenue due from such college. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to degregate from the liability of the college for any such dues to the teacher or employees". 12. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to degregate from the liability of the college for any such dues to the teacher or employees". 12. As is clear from Section 60-B, the liability of the State Government for payment of salaries is limited only to those teachers and non-teaching employees of a Degree College who are covered by the definition of the terms teacher' and `employee' respectively as given in Section 60-A. it appears that the petitioners in these writ petitions do not fall within the scope of definitions of these terms and are as such deprived of the benefit of payment of salary by the State Government. They, it appears, are being paid by the management of the institute at rates lesser than that admissible to those getting salaries from the Government in accordance with the provisions of the said Chapter XI-A of the Act and the basis grievance of the petitioner thus is that they should also be entitled to salary to be paid by the State Government. 13. The management of the Institution as also the Unions of the employees of the institute have been making representations to the State Government and the Director of Higher education against their grievance for non payment of salaries under Chapter XI of the act this court under interim orders dated 30-11-1983 in writ petition No. 11141 of 1983 (M.N. Khanna v. State of U.P. and others granted an interim mandamus directing the Director of Higher education to decide the representations already made on which might be further made either by the teachers or by any non teaching staff of this institute. In compliance with this order, the Director of Higher education, it appears considered the representations and submitted a detailed report dated 23-12-1983 copy whereof has been filed as Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit dated 14-3-1984 of Shri A.N. Tewari the then Assistant Director Higher Education in the said writ petition. This report of Director, Higher Education is quite detailed on which all the important points in controversy in these writ petitions appear to have been dealt with. This report of Director, Higher Education is quite detailed on which all the important points in controversy in these writ petitions appear to have been dealt with. As per this report due then director of Higher Education Shri Satish Chandra Gupta looked into the relevant files, afforded an opportunity of hearing to the concerned petitioner and on the basis of the records including the Managers he turns and statements of the institute relating to various years made out the following main points : "(1) Government used to give maintenance grant upto 1974-75 to various private colleges under the provisions of paragraph 319 of the U. P. Education Code. When a college was declared eligible for getting Government grant, the strength of the staff as was approved for purposes of grant in aid was expressly specified, posts not so specified were not taken into account, for payment of salaries. (2) When a college came on grant in-aid list, the Education Directorate used to approve non-teaching posts essential for teaching purposes according to the norms laid down by the Government from time to time. General guide lines of the norms and various designations for the non-teaching posts were given in G. O. No. Ca-3/3269/15-10-1968 dated 13-5-1969 (already referred). (3) When this institution came on grant-in-aid list in the year 1966-67 only 41 teaching posts were approved for maintenance grant under G. O. No. Ca-2/235/15.265.68 dated 25-3-1968. As regards nonteaching staff, three posts of class III and 18 posts of class IV were approved by the Director in December, 1968. (4) In this Institution some non-teaching posts were shown to exist with peculiar designations which are not approved for any category institution. The number of students of this Institution being only about 500, non-teaching post which could be approved were only as per the norms laid down for category (6) institutions in the said G. O. dated 13-5-1968. (5) The institute applied in 1978 for creation of more posts which request was duly considered and one post of library clerk and 8 posts of class IV were created vide letter dated 24-11-1978. Some of these posts could not, however, be filled by the institution till 1-9-1983. (5) The institute applied in 1978 for creation of more posts which request was duly considered and one post of library clerk and 8 posts of class IV were created vide letter dated 24-11-1978. Some of these posts could not, however, be filled by the institution till 1-9-1983. (6) One of the pleas raised before the Director was that some persons were appointed on non-teaching posts after 31-3-1975 and approval for these appointments was duly sought and in the sense of an y reply, these employees were deemed to have been approved under statute 25.04 of the Allahabad University. This point was also considered by the director of education in the said report and it was stated that service Rules of non-teaching employees were introduced under the Statute from 11-6-1977 and the statute 25.0- is only a part of the rules given in Chapter XXIII of the statute. No case of approval of appointments against new or vacant posts in accordance with chapter XXIII of the statute of the Allahabad University was put forward by the management and as such there was no question of deemed approval of 16 persons who were said to be working on unapproved posts. (7) Another important claim raised in the representations was that this Institute is of National importance having facility of teaching upto post graduate and research scholars and the teaching and non-teaching staff ought to be paid salaries admissible to employees of an autonomous college. According to the report of the Director both degree colleges and post graduate colleges are treated alike for purposes of grant-in-aid and eventually for purposes of payment of salaries under chapter Xl-A of the Act. Examples of important colleges like the Agra College, Agra Bareilly College, Bareilly, Meerut College, Meerut, Christ Church College, Kanpur and St. John's College, Agra were given mentioning that these colleges are post graduate colleges with glorious past and they are all governed by the same provisions in the matter of payment of grants-in-aid and salaries to the teachers and non-teaching staff. 14. From the perusal of the records of the various writ petitions, it appears that common grounds of challenge in all these petition appear to be like this namely. 14. From the perusal of the records of the various writ petitions, it appears that common grounds of challenge in all these petition appear to be like this namely. (1) That the petitioners are employees of and working in the Institute from before 1974-75 and were being paid salary partly from the maintenance grant and partly from the income of the institution, and they are substantially covered within the definition of the term `teachers' and employees under Section 60-A of the Act. (2) That the Government order dated 13-5-1968 classifying colleges into (a), (b) and (c) categories is discriminatory and ultra vires being arbitrary and without carrying any sanction or backing of any law. (3) That the G.O. dated 13-5-1968 was not intended to apply to the institutions already established and imparting higher level or standard of education, as otherwise the G. O. will be in conflict with the object of excellence of education. (4) That the definition of `teacher' or employee under Section 60-A of the Act is arbitrary inasmuch as it refers to the posts existing and included in the grant-in-aid list for the year 1974-75. (5) That the definition of the term teacher' and employee' under Section 60-A in so far as it deprives the petitioners is punitive and is a nullity being ultra vires and against public policy and social justice enshrined in Articles 14 and 30 (2) of the Constitution. (6) That Sections 60-F and 67 are ultra vires and contrary of the spirit of and the intention underlying Sections 60-C, 60-D and 60-E. (7) That creation or abolition of posts or filling up or keeping vacant any posts is within the powers of the management of the institution and the teachers and employees working on the posts created and filled up by the management are entitled to salary under the provisions of chapter XI-A of the Act. (8) That the Director of Higher Education has illegally interpreted the law and the orders of the Director of Higher Education in so far as it deprives the petitioners right of disbursement of salary under the provisions of Chapter XI-A of the Act are arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. 15. We may first deal with the plea relating to Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 15. We may first deal with the plea relating to Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Clause (1) of this Article guarantees the right of a religious or linguistic minority to establish and administer educational institutions of its choice clause (2) of this Article provides that the state shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority whether.based on religion or language. The substance of the plea relate-able to Article 30 of the Constitution as appears to have been raised by some of the petitioners, is that the Institute is one of the Asia fame as regards education in agricultural sciences. The standard or education being maintained in the institute is far superior to the general standard of education maintained by other degree colleges in the State and for keeping up the excellence of education it is necessary to have the desired strength of teaching as well a non-teaching staff on the rolls of the college and the management cannot be forced to bring down the standard of education by curtailment of the stall' under the threat of not paying the salary because that would militate against the fundamental right of the minorities to establish and administer the institution. This plea has to be considered in the context of factual position relating to the controversy. This is not the case of denial of grant-in-aid to the Institute by the State Government. This is also not a case where any terms and conditions of grant-in-aid imposed by the Government on this Institute are different from the terms and conditions applicable to other Degree Colleges in the state. The accepted factual position is that the institute was established long before it came on grant in-aid list of the Government for the first time in the year 1967-68. As is mentioned above rules for grant-in-aid are contained in chapter IX of the Educational Code, relevant rules being contained in paragraphs 309 to 316 of this Code. The extent of grant to be given to a degree college has been specified in paragraph 319 thereof. As is mentioned above rules for grant-in-aid are contained in chapter IX of the Educational Code, relevant rules being contained in paragraphs 309 to 316 of this Code. The extent of grant to be given to a degree college has been specified in paragraph 319 thereof. The institute must, obviously, have applied for the grant-in-aid of the Government as per the roles and procedure contained in the Code and it has not been denied that the grant-in aid as per the provisions contained in chapter IX of the Code was made available to the Institute from 1967-68 to 1974-75. No grievance appears to have been raised in this behalf by the management of the Institute at any point of time. In any case, it has been asserted or established that the management of the Institute filed any writ petition which may have been disposed of or may be pending in regard to the grant-in aid paid by the State Government. In any of these writ petitions also it has not been alleged that in the matter of sanction and release of maintenance grant, this Institute was, in any way, discriminated against and what appears, on the other hand, is that the maintenance grant or grant-in-aid was sanctioned and paid to this Institute in accordance with the terms and conditions generally applicable to the maintenance grant payable to other Degree colleges in the State. Accordingly, there has been clearly no violation of the constitutional mandate contained in clause (2) of Article 30 of the Constitution. Question of violation of clause (1) of Article 30 can arise only if the State or any authority or officer of the State interferes or tries to interfere in the internal administration or management of the institute. There are no allegations, whatsoever, that the State of the Director of Education has directly or indirectly interfered with the management of the institute in the matter of grant-in-aid or in payment of salary to the teachers and non-teaching staff of the institute under Chapter XI-A of the Act. The Institute is free to create as many posts as it considers necessary and also to manage the affairs of the institution according to its own choice without being subject to any conditions on restrictions it is free to set and maintain its own standards of education and for that purpose to have the desired staff and equipment etc. The Institute is free to create as many posts as it considers necessary and also to manage the affairs of the institution according to its own choice without being subject to any conditions on restrictions it is free to set and maintain its own standards of education and for that purpose to have the desired staff and equipment etc. Prior to the enactment of chapter XI-A of the Act, maintenance grant was sanctioned and released according to the provisions contained in Chapter IX of the Code. The basic position as regards Government aid has not undergone any change with Rule in enactment. What has been done through the provisions contained in Chapter XI-A of the Act is that the liability for payment of salary to the teachers and employees of Degree Colleges has been directly taken over by the Government and procedure has been laid down for disbursement of sal-arises to such staff. As is clear from the definition of the terms teachers and `employee' contained in Section 60-A all the teachers and non-teaching staff in respect of whose employment maintenance grant was being paid by the State Government during the financial year 1974-75 were covered for purposes of benefit of disbursement of salary by the Government under Chapter XI-A of the Act. The Government cannot be expected to give grant-in-aid to the institutions without imposing any restrictions or limitations as to the strength of the staff or ?s to the creation of new posts as may be required by a particular college from time to time. Likewise, it cannot be expected that the liability for payment of the salary would be accepted in respect of every member of the staff irrespective of the fact whether or not be was selected and appointed in accordance with the prescribed procedure and possessed requisite qualifications. Such restrictions and limitations as to the strength of the staff and to the entitlement of the benefit of payment of salary by the State Government cannot, in any way, be said ten-tom out to interference in the management other Institute. Such restrictions and limitations as to the strength of the staff and to the entitlement of the benefit of payment of salary by the State Government cannot, in any way, be said ten-tom out to interference in the management other Institute. Benefit of such provisions has to be extended to all the Degree Colleges on an uniform basis and in the absence of any allegation and proof of discrimination in this behalf the action of the Government or the Director of Education in disbursement of salary in accordance with the provisions of chapter-XI-A of the Act cannot be said to be amounting to any interference in the right of the management to establish or administer the institution guaranteed under clause (I) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rev. Sidhrarj Bhau Sabbai and others v. State of Gujart, AIR 1963 SC 540 ; Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389 ; Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC, page 311. We have gone through these decisions and are of the view that none of these decisions is applicable to the facts of the case. As a proposition of law, the submission is unassailable that the right established by Article 30 (1) of the Constitution is intended to be a real right for the protection of the minorities in the matter of affiliation or grant-in-aid and any order or action which interferes with the right of the minority to administer the institution would be illegal and ultra-vires. The question in each case here to be considered on its own facts. Sidhraj Bhai's case (supra) related to the rules and orders issued by the Government authorising reservation in non-Governmental institutions and it was also provided that in the event of non-fulfilment of the conditions set cut in the rules, the Education Department had the right to withdraw recognition and to refuse to pay grant to the institution concerned. Sidhraj Bhai's case (supra) related to the rules and orders issued by the Government authorising reservation in non-Governmental institutions and it was also provided that in the event of non-fulfilment of the conditions set cut in the rules, the Education Department had the right to withdraw recognition and to refuse to pay grant to the institution concerned. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while analysing the provisions of the impugned rules and the orders came to the conclusion that the right of private training colleges |to admit students of their choice was fairly restricted and enforcement of the restriction is sought to be secured by holding out a threat to withdraw recognition and to refuse to pay-grant-in-aid. According to the facts of St. Xzavier's College case (supra) the impugned provisions related to the constitution of the governing body, the right of the court of the University to determine any instruction, teaching and training in course of study and about the conditions of service of to teaching and non-teaching staff of an affiliated collage and settlement of disputes between the governing body and any member of the staff. In Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association's case (supra), the question involved was regarding the requirement about scales of pay and allowances of employees of recognised private schools to be not less than that of the employees of the schools run by appropriate authorities. 17. In the present, no such restrictions are involved as regards the right of the management of the institute and the decisions of relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no application to the facts of the present case. As has already been analysed, it is a case where grant-in-aid was being paid to the Institute on the same terms and conditions on which such grant was paid to other aided colleges. Tire only relevant condition was that the grant-in-aid being disbursed was limited to the strength of the staff prescribed for different categories of Colleges and was relating to the approved posts. The liability for payment of salary to the staff under Chapter XI-A of the Act is limited to teachers and other employees in respect of whom maintenance grant was already paid to the institutions during the financial year 1974-75. By no at-retch of imagination these provisions interfere with the right of administration of the management of the Institute. The liability for payment of salary to the staff under Chapter XI-A of the Act is limited to teachers and other employees in respect of whom maintenance grant was already paid to the institutions during the financial year 1974-75. By no at-retch of imagination these provisions interfere with the right of administration of the management of the Institute. As such the plea relating to Article 30 of the Constitution of India, to our mind, is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. 18. The next point of challenge relating to the classification of the colleges under Government order dated 13-5-1968 may now be dealt with. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that this classification is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any sanction of law. As is mentioned already, the Degree Colleges for the purpose of grant-in-aid were divided into three categories being (a), (b) and (c) depending on the number of the students on the rolls, Colleges having students upto 500 were classified as (c) category. While those having students between 500 to 1500 as (B) category and those having above 1500 were placed in (A) category. The strength of the staff and the scales admissible to the posts in such colleges were also specified in the said G. O. It cannot be accepted that all the colleges for the purposes of grant-in-aid must be treated alike. Some basis is necessary to be evolved for this purpose and this basis must necessarily have relationship to the requirement and need for the quantum of maintenance grant. It is obvious that the number of teaching posts required in a college having 200 students on its roll would be different from the number of the teachers required for a college having only 500 students on its roll; the larger the number of the students larger would be the number of the classes and sections and there will be corresponding need for the teachers required for the teaching work, the strength of the staff both class III and class IV would also have a direct relationship with the number of the students on the rolls and the classes and sections working in the college. Accordingly, the strength of the students on the rolls of different colleges would, obviously, be rational and reasonable basis for the purposed of assessment of the need for the number of teaching and non teaching posts in the college. Learned counsel for the petitioners were unable to suggest any other rational basis for determining the quantum of maintenance grant to the various colleges. Upon careful consideration, we are clearly of the view that the basis of classification of the Degree Colleges in the State for purposes of maintenance grant, as specified in the G.O. dated 13-5-1968, is reasonable and rational having direct relationship to the object to be achieved and this cannot, in any way, be said to be arbitrary, discriminatory and ultra-vires. This G.O. came into force in May 1968 and no challenge to the classification under this G.O. is said to have ever been raised by the management of this institute. The plea raised by the petitioner in this behalf of lacks merit. 19. Another contention raised in respect of this G. O. is that it was not intended to apply to the institutions which had already been established prior to the enforcement of this G. O. as otherwise it will be in conflict with the object of excellence of education. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the colleges which were established prior to the enforcement of this G. O. had already employed the teaching and non-teaching staff and were not expected to retrench their staff so as to entitle itself to the benefit of maintenance grant for all the posts. We are unable to appreciate this submission. As already stated the requirement of staff has to be need based and such need broadly have relation to the number of students. In so far as the Government is concerned the matter has to be regulated according to some general standards and variable only according to the needs as may be put forward by particular institutions. The institutions could not be divided in two categories one including those already established prior to the enforcement of this G. O. and the thereof these established subsequent thereto. To have done so would, obviously, have been unreasonable and discriminatory. The institutions could not be divided in two categories one including those already established prior to the enforcement of this G. O. and the thereof these established subsequent thereto. To have done so would, obviously, have been unreasonable and discriminatory. If the classification was to relate to the number of the students on the rolls, all the institutions had to be treated alike, whether established before or after the enforcement of this G. O. If a particular institution was having stall' more than that as was stipulated for that category in the said G. O. it was not necessary for the management to retrench the surplus staff. If considered necessary for excellence of education and for any other reason it was open to the particular institution to maintain the staff and pay its salary from its own resources. The other course could be to bring down the strength of the staff in due course of time by not filling up the posts on retirement of its incumbents. In any case, what was done under the G. O. was that maintenance grant was released and paid in respect of the posts approved according to the general standard as to the strength of the staff' and this cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal. The G.O. in question clearly applied to all the institutions, whether established before or after its enforcement and challenge raised to its validity is clearly misconceived and lacking merit. 20. This brings us to the provisions of Chapter VI-A of the Act. The petitioners are aggrieved by the restricted scope of the definition of the the terms, teacher and `employee' contained in Section 60-A of the Act. As has already been mentioned, whose definitions cover only those teachers and employee in respect of whose employment maintenance grant was being paid by the State Government during the financial year 1974-75, Some cut off date had to be specified for purposes of enforcement of the provisions of Chapter VI-A, particularly Sections 60-B and 60-E. Chapter XI-A was inserted by U. P. Act 21 of 1975 and it was only reasonable to extend the benefits of these provisions to all those teachers and non-teaching employees in respect of whose employment the maintenance grant. Was being paid during the financial year 1974-75. Was being paid during the financial year 1974-75. No teacher or other employee who was already under the benefit of maintenance grant at the time of commencement of U. P. Act 21 of 1985 was left out. Further more the definition these terms was extending to cover such non-teaching employees also who are appointed with the permission of Director of Education after March, 31, 1975 and as rigorous teachers duly appointed on such posts which are created after March 31, 1975 with the permission of the Director of Education or the posts created before April, 1975 with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor of the University concerned. The definitions of these terms, to our mind, appear to be reasonable and rational and cannot in any way, be said to be arbitrary. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were already in the employment of the Institute prior to the commencement of U P. Act 21 of 1975 and were being paid their salaries partly out of the maintenance grant made available by the State Government and were as such substantially covered within the scope of the definitions of the terms teacher and employees'. The fact that the petitioners or some of them were already in the employment of the institute arid were being paid their salary from the funds of the institute is hardly of any assistance in so far as the benefit of the provisions of Chapter XI-A of the Act is concerned. Maintenance grant under paragraph 319 of the Code was allowed in respect of the approved posts and it was in material that the amount of the maintenance grant was drawn and merged in the funds of the college and therefore salaries were paid to the entire staff. The fact remained that in so far as the State Government is concerned, maintenance grant was made available only in respect of the approved posts and such posts continued to be covered by the provisions of Chapter Xf-A of the Act. The definitions of the terms `teacher' and `employee' have to be strictly construed and those who are covered by these definitions alone would be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of this Chapter. The submission that the definitions of these terms are punitive and against public policy in so far as they exclude some of the employees, is clearly misconceived. The submission that the definitions of these terms are punitive and against public policy in so far as they exclude some of the employees, is clearly misconceived. As is already analysed some basis had to be evolved for the purposes of determination of maintenance grant and the basis given in the G. O. dated 13-5-1968 is clearly reasonable and rationale and perfectly justified. Same would be the position as regards the scope of the definition of the terms teacher and `employee' given in Section 60-A of the Act. The Government is concerned with the extent of its liability under the provisions of Chapter XI- A and if the liability is provided to be limited only in respect of approved post this course of action cannot be said to be contrary to public policy. Public funds have to be utilised in accordance with a policy to be formulated on the basis of reasonable standards and the provisions of the G. O. 13-5-1968 as also the scope of definitions of the terms`teacher' and `employee' contained in Section 60-A of the Act to our mind lay down reasonable basis. The demand for extension of benefit to the posts beyond the scope of the definition of these terms is clearly unjustified and unwarranted. 22. In some of the writ petitions it has been pleaded that the Institute is a post-graduate college but is being treated by the Education Department as a Degree College. On behalf for the Government it has, however, been argued that for the purposes of maintenance grant under the Code, as also for the purposes of provisions of chapter XI of the Act there was no distinction between a Degree College teaching Degree Classes and a degree college which besides Degree Classes was having post-graduate classes. On going through the provisions of the Code it appears that there is no separate classification of Degree Colleges and post graduate colleges and the Degree Colleges which are teaching upto post graduate degrees are also covered within the meaning and scope of Degrees Colleges. Paragraph 319 of the Code has already been quoted above. Paragraph 61 of the Code is reproduced below : "61. There are three Degree College one each at Nainital, Gyadpur (Varanasi) and Rampur which are maintained by Government, the first teaching upto the post graduate degrees and the last one upto the first degree course. Paragraph 319 of the Code has already been quoted above. Paragraph 61 of the Code is reproduced below : "61. There are three Degree College one each at Nainital, Gyadpur (Varanasi) and Rampur which are maintained by Government, the first teaching upto the post graduate degrees and the last one upto the first degree course. All these three Colleges are affiliated to the Agra University.'' (Emphasis supplied) Chapter III of the Code deals with Universities, Degree Colleges and Oriental Institutions. There is no separate category of post graduate colleges. Coming to the provisions of Chapter XI-A of the Act, it may be noticed that this chapter deals with the payment of salary to teachers and other employees Degree Colleges. Learned Counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any provisions of the Act which may have separate application to post-graduate colleges in contra distinction to a Degree College Section 38 of the Act deals with Associate Colleges and subsection (4) of the said section provides that the conditions for recognition of a associated Colleges shall be prescribed by the Statute and no associated College shall be authorised to import instructions for post-graduate degrees except with the previous approval of the Chancellor. This means that for purposes of this Act, a Degree College which is authorised to impart instructions for post graduate degrees will also be a degree College. The submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners on this point have, as such, no substance. 23. It is also pleaded in some of the writ petitions that the Institute in question is an autonomous college Section 42 of the Act deals with autonomous colleges. It provides that the University may grant in the prescribed manner to an affiliated or associated college which satisfied the conditions prescribed in that behalf, the privilege of varying for students receiving instructions in such a college the courses of studies prescribed by the University and holding examination in the Courses so varied. Such a college is to be declared in the prescribed manner as an autonomous colleges under sub-section (3) of Section 42. As is clear from the wording of this section, the distribution between an affiliated associated Colleges is that an autonomous college has also been given power to hold examinations in the course varied with the permission of the University. Such a college is to be declared in the prescribed manner as an autonomous colleges under sub-section (3) of Section 42. As is clear from the wording of this section, the distribution between an affiliated associated Colleges is that an autonomous college has also been given power to hold examinations in the course varied with the permission of the University. The institute in question is an associate College of the Allahabad University and if according to it management there is a need for having it declared as an autonomous college and it specifies the conditions required for the purpose, it may appropriately approach the Allahabad University. For so long as it is not so declared, the Institute cannot be said to be an autonomous College for purposes of the pro visions of the Act. The plea raised in this behalf by the petitioners does not appear to carry any relevance and in any case it lacks merit and has to be rejected. 24. This disposes of all the points underlying the common grounds of challenge, worth any consequence, raised in the writ petitions in this bunch. We may then deal with the grievances of individual type by some of the petitioners, The learned counsel failed to show how the provisions of Sections 60 and 61 are ultra vires which are only consequential and provide for penalties. For one category of individual grievances we may look to Writ Petition No. 684 of 1985 of S.P. Singh and others, Writ Petition No. 12055 of 1983 of S.D. Belton, Writ Petition No. 11733 of 1983 of John A. Lal, Writ Petition No. 11389 of 1983 of C. Das, Writ Petition No. 11390 of 1983, Writ Petition No. 2185 of 1985 of Lazar Singh and others, Writ Petition No. 2185 of 1985 of Datadin and five others, Writ Petition No. 110046 of 1985. H. Lartius and others In all these writ petitions it is broadly canvassed that the petitioners were appointed initially in the lower grades but have been working in the Institute from before 1974-75 on higher posts and according together qualifications for and length of service on the higher promotive posts, they are entitled to salary of the higher post as respectively specified in each writ petition and that the Government is liable to pay the salary under the provisions of Chapter II-A of the Act. The factual disputes of this nature cannot be gone into and determined by this Court in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For this purpose the appropriate remedy of the petitioners, obviously, is to raise this dispute before the management of the Institute and it would then be for the management of the Institute to consider and decide the same. In so far as the liability of the Government for payment of salary under Chapter II-A of the Act is concerned, it is limited to the teachers and other employees in accordance with the provisions of Section 60-E, read with Section 60-A of the Act. Suffice it to say that all those teachers and other employees in respect of whose employment maintenance grant was being paid by the State Government during the financial year 1974-75, they would be entitled to salary for the same posts subsequent to the enactment of Chapter XI-A (Sections 60-A to 60-H) of the Act. If any other teacher was duly appointed to a post created after March, 31, 1.975 with the permission of the Director of Education, he shall also be entitled to be paid salary by the State Government. Likewise, a non-teaching employee who was appointed to a post with the permission of the Director of Education after March 31, 1974, he too would be entitled to salary under Chapter XI-A of the Act. It appears that there is no grievance as regards to the payment of salary in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II-A of the Act. The grievance appears to that the promotion posts on which the petitioners are said to be actually working ought to be covered within the scope of terms `teacher' and `employee' under Section 60-A of the Act. It is, obviously, not possible for this court to examine each case to find out and determine whether the member of the staff concerned was or ought to be appointed to the relevant post with the permission of the Director of Education. It is, obviously, not possible for this court to examine each case to find out and determine whether the member of the staff concerned was or ought to be appointed to the relevant post with the permission of the Director of Education. It is for the management of the Institute to take up the matter with the Director of Education, case to case and satisfy the Director that keeping in view the relevant considerations, some of the posts are required to be approved and the permission for appointment of the incumbents to be granted by the Director, Only direction which can, however, be issued is that if and when any such proposal is taken up by the management, it shall be dealt with and disposed of by the Director of Education with speed and in consideration of the matter the Director shall not fairly and sympathetically and shall not discriminate this Institute, in any manner, whatsoever. 25. In the earlier part of the Judgment, we have referred to the book-let issued by the Institute in 1984 entitled `Programmes and Planning'. According to this book-let the total number of students as in February, 1984 was 819. The Institute was classified in category (c) on the ground that the number of students on its rolls was 500 in the year 1974-75, According to G. O. dated 13-5-1968, the categorisation of this institute requires to be changed to category (B) if the number of the students is between 500 and 1500. While perusing Annexure C.A.-2 to the counter-affidavit of Shri Ram Upadhya the then Assistant Director of Education in writ petition No. 10045 of 1984 of S. P. G. Lal, we find that the number of Class III and Class IV stall' is somewhat variable in different colleges. The number of students of Janta Vedic College, Barot is shown to be 800 and the number of teachers is 27 while that of Class III is 8 and of class IV is 20. As against the number of student of A. S. College, Lakhoti is 484 and the number of teachers is shown to be 27 while that of Class III 2 and Class IV 20. The position of R B. S. College, Agra and that of Kalbhaskar Ashram College, Allahabad. Is entirely different. As against the number of student of A. S. College, Lakhoti is 484 and the number of teachers is shown to be 27 while that of Class III 2 and Class IV 20. The position of R B. S. College, Agra and that of Kalbhaskar Ashram College, Allahabad. Is entirely different. Kulbhaskar Ashram College has only 333 students while the number of teachers is 41 and number of class III employees is 20 and Class IV 14. R. B. S. College, Agra has 656 students and number of teachers is 44 while number of class III staff is 10 and class IV staff' 24. As against this, Institute having total number of students as 629 has only four Class III posts and 19 Class IV posts. As against Kulbhaskar Ashram College, Allahabad the number of posts approved for this Institute is considerably low. All these five colleges are shown to be providing instruction in agriculture at the degree and post graduate level. These variable figures have not been explained on behalf of the opposite parties in the counter-affidavits filed in various writ petitions. This indicates that some variation is permissible in the matter of approval of the strength of teaching as well as non-teaching staff and if that be so, the case of this Institute requires to be considered fairly and some what liberally because this appears to be the undisputed position that the Institute is one of the most important institutions imparting education in the field of agricultural sciences anons said to enjoy high reputation of excellence. Accordingly the Director of Education and the State Government will be required to consider all the relevant aspects when any proposals are taken before the Director by the management of the Institute for the purpose of creation of posts and appointment of the persons concerned for purposes of payment of salary under the provisions of chapter I of the Act. 26. Another category of the petitioners belong to that category who claim that they are working on duly created posts and whose appointment was also duly made on such posts by the management of the Institute and the approval of the Director of Education shall be deemed to have been granted under Statute 25.04 of the Statute of Allahabad University. 26. Another category of the petitioners belong to that category who claim that they are working on duly created posts and whose appointment was also duly made on such posts by the management of the Institute and the approval of the Director of Education shall be deemed to have been granted under Statute 25.04 of the Statute of Allahabad University. The submission made is that such petitioners are working on the posts which were on the grant-in-aid list for the year 1974-76 and when the incumbents of these posts in 1974-75 retired, the petitioner came to be appointed. The case of petitioner Canesh in Writ Petition 8822 of 1984 may be looked into be appreciate this submission. In Paragraph 20 of this writ petition it has been submitted that the management of the Institute created five posts of lecturers and one post of Head and Professor of Department alongwith the one Administrator with the concurrence of Vice-Chancellor and this post has to be filled through a Selection Committee of the Allahabad University and approval by the Vice-Chancellor. In Paragraph 30 it has been pleaded that the selection of this petitioner on the post of lecturer in Dairy Technology Department was approved by the Vice-Chancellor and communicated through letter dated 26-11-1975 and on the basis of the approval of the Vice-Chancellor salary was also related for the month of February, 1976 in respect of such approved appointments including that of the petitioner but thereafter the cost had been advertised and the continued payment of the salary to the petitioner has been disallowed. According to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the state it has been pleaded that no maintenance grant was ever given to the Institute in respect of tire post against which this petitioner claims to have been appointed. In Paragraph 40 of the counter-affidavit filed in this case it has been stated that the salary in the month of February, 1976 appears to have been paid by mistake of the District Inspector of Schools. In Paragraph 40 of the counter-affidavit filed in this case it has been stated that the salary in the month of February, 1976 appears to have been paid by mistake of the District Inspector of Schools. In Paragraph 45 of this counter-affidavit, it is further stated that irrespective of the approval of the Vice-Chancellor to an appointment, only those lecturers were given the benefit of payment of salary from the Salary Payment Account who fulfilled the conditions laid down in Section 60-A of the Act and since the post on which the petitioner Canesh claims appointment was not on the maintenance grant list, benefit of Chapter XI-A could not be extended in his favour. For purposes of benefit of salary under Chapter XI-A, a teacher must be one in respect of whose employment maintenance grant was being paid during the year 1974-75 or who is employed with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor concerned to a post created before April 1, 1975 with the permission of the Vice-Chancellor or to a post created after March 31, 1975 with the permission of the Director of Education. In this way, there are two conditions to be satisfied one about the post having been created with the permission of the Vice-Chancellor or the Director of Education as the case may be and, secondly, that the appointment of the teacher concerned is made with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor of the University. According to opposite parties, no maintenance grant was given to the Institute in respect of this petitioner's employment in the year 1974-75 nor was he appointed to a post created with the permission of the Director of Education after 1-4-1975. In ground No. x of the grounds set out in the writ petition, it has been stated that the name of the petitioner for the promotive post had been forwarded by the Principal of the Institute in the year 1978 without getting any intimation of its disapproval and thus his appointment would be deemed to have been approved. 27. Chapter XXIII of the Statute of the Allahabad University deals with the qualifications and conditions of service of non-teaching staff of the associated colleges. As regards teachers, Part II of Chapter XI of the Statute contains provisions relating to qualifications and appointment of teachers in the associated colleges. 27. Chapter XXIII of the Statute of the Allahabad University deals with the qualifications and conditions of service of non-teaching staff of the associated colleges. As regards teachers, Part II of Chapter XI of the Statute contains provisions relating to qualifications and appointment of teachers in the associated colleges. While there is a deemed provision contained in Statute 25.04, for non-teaching staff of the associated colleges, there appears no corresponding deeming provision as regards teachers in the associated colleges n Part II of Chapter XI of the Statute. Accordingly, the claim of deeming approval raised by the petitioner Canesh on the west of lecturer appears to be unsupportable even under the provisions of the Statute of the University. As regards the petitioners who claim benefit in respect of non-teaching posts on deeming approval, reliance is place, as stated above, on Statute 25.04 contained in Chapter XXIII of the Statutes. This Statute may be reproduced below : "25.04 Appointment of employees shall be subject to the approval of the Directorate of Education (Higher Education), or an officer authorised by him in this behalf. If the approving authority does not within two months from receiving the proposal for approval intimate its disapproval or does not send any intimation in respect of such proposal to the appointing authority, the approving authority shall be deemed to have approved the appointment. The plea as regards deeming approval has been health with in the report of the Director of Education dated 23-12-1983 submitted in compliance with the interim mandamus of this Court. It has been stated in Paragraph 6(b) of this report that the management of the Institute requested in 1977 and also in 1978 for approval of new posts which according to the management were existing since long and upon consideration nine new non-teaching posts were created in the college against which no appointments were made by the Institute and since no case of approval for appointment against new or vacant posts was put forward by the management under Chapter XXIII of the Statute, there is no question of deemed approval of 16 persons who are said to be working on unapproved posts. The controversy underlying these writ petition is whether the particular post or posts were actually on the list which was approved by the Director for purposes of disbursement of maintenance grant in the year 1974-75 and further whether the management of the Institute submitted proposals of appointment of any one or more of the petitioners for approval in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XXIII of the Statute of the University. These writ petitions are filed by the Association of the employees or the individual employees and not by the management of the institute. This factual controversy can appropriately be deal with and settled initially alleged as between the management of the institutes and the Director of Education. Each case will require to be examined with reference to the relevant papers which may explain the position as regards the approval posts for the year 1974-75 as to when a particular post fell vacant and whether the petitioner concerned was duly qualified for appointment to that post and the proposal for his appointment to such vacant post was submitted to the Director as required under Chapter XXIII of the statute. Same would as the position as regard to the posts which were' related subsequent to the year 1974-75 and proposal, for appointment in relation Statute. It does not appear reliable'and appropriate to determine and resolve this factual controversy in these writ petitions mainly between the employees and the State of U. P. the management of the institution will be required to put up its case in relation to each post duly supported by relevant documents. At best, a direction can be issued to the authorities concerned to deal with and determine this matter when raised by the management, on priority basis. 28. No other worth while point has been canvassed on of the petitioners in these writ petitions. 29. For the reasons discussed as above, all these writ petitions merit rejection as regards the claim for a writ of mandamus directing the State Government and the Director of Education to make payment of salaries and allowances to the petitioners under Chapter XI-A of the Act. As already mentioned, Directions can, however, be issued to the authorities to deal with and dispose of the materials on priority basis as already observed in the body of this judgment. 30. As already mentioned, Directions can, however, be issued to the authorities to deal with and dispose of the materials on priority basis as already observed in the body of this judgment. 30. All these writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of with the direction that the opposite-parties particularly the Director of Higher Education, shall consider the representations/proposal of the management of this Institute, if already pending, or as may be submitted, in regard to the matters covered by these writ petitions and dispose of the same expeditiously, fairly, objectively and keeping in view the observations contained in this judgment. These matters may include proposals : (a) for up-gradation of the classification of the Institute ; (b) for creation of new posts of teachers and non-teaching staff; (c) for according approval to the appointments made, of to be made, on the posts laying vacant or those as may further be created ; (d) for payment of salary to any teacher or a .member of non-teaching staff who may justifiably claim to have been covered within the scope of definition of the terms `teacher's and `employee' contained in Section 60-A of the Act. 31. Parties shall bear their own costs in all these writ petitions.